KOBINSON. — ON CERTAIN COMPOSITAE. 207 



aud A. Drummondii Gray in Hook. Jour. Bot. and Kew. Misc. iv. 22G 

 (1852). PumiloPreissii Sonder, Linnaea, xxv. 487 (1852-53). Rutidosis 

 Pum'ilo Benth. Fl. Austral, iii. 595 (1866), It is obvious that Ben- 

 tham's specific name Pumilo, though long current, cannot stand under 

 the International Rules, since it is antedated by several other names. 

 Of the various designations under which the plant has been described, 

 Nees's Stijloncerus multiflorus bears the earliest date. It was pub- 

 Kshed in the second fascicle of the second volume of Lehmann's Plantae 

 Preissianae, and the preface of this volume, which included three fas- 

 cicles, was dated November, 1847. Meisner under date of July, 1848, 

 speaks (Flora, 1848, p. 4'J6) of the second and third fascicles of the sec- 

 ond volume of Lehmann's work as just issued, an expression, which at 

 least so far as it concerns the second fascicle presumably means some- 

 time during the spring or early summer of 1848. Schlechtendal's 

 Pumilo argyrolepis was also published in 1848, a circumstance raising 

 no small doubt as to the relative priority of these names. Yet it is to 

 be noted that on a preceding page of his paper (Linnaea, xxi. 444) 

 Schlechtendal refers to an article in the issue of the Botanische Zeit- 

 ung, dated 26 May, 1848, proving that Schlechtendal's own publica- 

 tion must have been distinctly later. Indeed, it is shown therein that 

 in the meantime added plants had been found by one of his corres- 

 pondents, had been sent for identification, were studied, described, and 

 the descriptions had reached print, all of which is not likely to have 

 happened between the end of May and July, when as stated by Meisner 

 fascicles 2 and 3 of the second volume of the Plantae Preissianae 

 had already been issued (at what previous date we do not know). 

 There is certainly nothing to show that the paper of Schlechtendal 

 preceded that of Nees. In default of such evidence, precedence may 

 be determined by the second clause of Article 39 of the International 

 Rules, which reads: "In the absence of proof to the contrary the date 

 placed on the work containing the name or combination of names is 

 regarded as correct." This, in the case of Nees's Styloncerus multi- 

 florus is, as we have seen, " 1846-47," while with Schlechtendal's 

 Pumilo argyrolepis it is 1848. 



Origin and Identity of Pharetranthus. The genus Pharetran- 

 thus Klatt, published in Flora, Ixviii. 203 (1885), was founded on 

 specimens collected by Hugh Cuming (no. 2454). These were sup- 

 posed to have come from the Philippine Islands both by Klatt, who 

 described them, and by Schultz Bipontinus, who seems to have made 

 a preliminary examination of them. The genus was tentatively placed 

 in Coreoj)sis by 0. Hoffmann in Engl. & Prantl, Nat. Pflanzenf iv. Ab. 

 5, 243 (1890), an opinion which he later— 1. c. iv. Ab. 5, 390 (1894), 



